On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 18:03, Ken Elliott wrote:
> But that's the exact point I was making. The F1 car or Aircraft is far
> superior in the _right_ application. But the Accord or Truck is more
> general purpose, easier to learn, cheaper to own, and effect for many (not
> all) applications.
The problem is that you assume, from your perspective, that AutoCAD is a
"general purpose" and Pro/E is not. Nothing is further from the truth.
Many people say "Word Processing" is "general purpose" but "Desktop
Publishing" is not. That also is not true.
It is based 100% on _assumptions_. AutoCAD approaches the problem
differently than Pro/E, but it does not mean Pro/E is "less general
purpose" than AutoCAD.
> The classic specialized tool v. general purpose tool issue. I just can't
> suggest making broad statements that one is better than the other. I agree
> that most people think CAD=AutoCAD. That certainly annoys the other CAD
> vendors, much like the blank stare I get when I say Linux.
Exactly. It's all about assumptions and familiarity.
-- Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@ieee.org ------------------------------------------------------------------ "Communities don't have rights. Only individuals in the community have rights. ... That idea of community rights is firmly rooted in the 'Communist Manifesto.'" -- Michael Badnarik----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:15:23 EDT